What John says below is good sense and IMHO should put the
discussion of this subject to bed (ignoring subthreads where
people have gone off on to other topics without changing
the subject field).
The phrase Last Call has built-in semantics. If something is
sufficiently straightforward that the
All of which suggests to me that Harald's contentious last
sentence should simply be removed.
btw I agree with all his other suggested changes.
Brian
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, 10 January, 2005 14:07 -0500 Leslie Daigle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
I believe Harald meant
I think I should apologize for including a modification to the IAOC role in
the removability clause in a discussion of finances. It is not relevant
to that topic.
But the discussion pointed out to me that there is some strangeness here -
in that the IAOC is described as having a role in the
Vernon Schryver wrote:
[some lines re-wrapped]
vs Please credit some of us with understanding the meaning of
vs escalate in the intended sense of evoke to an authority that
vs will issue a writ of mandamus.
*I* certainly did not intend such a meaning. Maybe I used the wrong
word; if so I
Yep, I think that's the right fix.
Leslie.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
I think I should apologize for including a modification to the IAOC role
in the removability clause in a discussion of finances. It is not
relevant to that topic.
But the discussion pointed out to me that there is some
I generally agree with many of the observations about what the IETF process
should probably be.
I also observe that there is a process for individual submissions, which Mark
and I have scrupulously followed. We ask that the IETF community consider our
work on its merits, not just on its
Hi John,
Your mail [1] puzzles me. I don't think I suggested that the W3C is
developing language tags. On the contrary, I wrote [2]:
| The W3C is highly dependent on the RFC 1766/3066 family of RFCs,
| as language-handling in HTML and XML is delegated to these RFCs.
| Within the W3C, the
From: Addison Phillips [wM] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In fact we feel that we've been very considerate
and open in the development of this draft in the language tagging
community and continue to be open to comments and criticism, no
matter the source.
Based on what I have seen in
Vernon == Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Vernon If the advocates for this I-D were really trying to follow
Vernon the IETF's processes, they would have taken one of the
Vernon suggestions for the next step and temporarily (or
Vernon permanently) retired from the field.
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:36:10 -0500
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-baker-alert-system-00.txt
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Structure of an International Emergency Alert
System
Author(s) : F. Baker, B.
The last call on this draft has ended. I appreciate all of the
technical comments raised in response to this draft. The
IESG will work with the authors to resolve those issues
and determine the next steps.
regards,
Ted Hardie
Vernon == Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, currently this
draft is in Ted's hands. It makes no sense for people to
withdraw drafts or to make any hasty decisions at all.
Vernon That's fine, but does suggest some questions:
From: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In fact we feel that we've been very considerate
and open in the development of this draft in the language tagging
community and continue to be open to comments and criticism, no
matter the source.
Based on what I have seen in
From: Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The process/WG/BCP/langtags mess...
That's fine, but does suggest some questions:
- Is the Last Call over?
- If so, was its result no supporting consensus?
- If the result was no supporting consensus, will the current
document
Date: 2005-01-11 13:33
From: Addison Phillips [wM] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Addressing some issues not covered by others:
In this case we have developed an I-D which would like to obsolete an
existing BCP which itself obsoletes a BCP. The I-D was developed using the
exact same process,
In recent discussion of a proposed replacement of a BCP RFC,
a couple of problems have reappeared:
1. There seems to be a fairly wide misunderstanding of what
BCP RFCs are supposed to cover. Part of the problem is that
Best Current Practice isn't a terribly good name for the
sort of
Date: 2005-01-11 05:17
From: Misha Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My understanding of the purpose of the IETF/W3C Liaison
group is, precisely, liaison over issues of importance to both the
IETF and the W3C.
Since the draft-philips-... effort isn't an IETF effort,
exactly who would represent the
--On Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 17:55 -0500 Sam Hartman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Procedurally speaking the responsible AD (Ted in this case)
decides what to do next. He can ask for revisions; he can
talk to the authors; he can try to create a working group; he
can tell the authors he
I will admit to having been a little more focused, during AUTH48,
on making sure that the document got back to saying what it had
said when it entered the RFC Editor queue some 5 months earlier.
Leslie.
John C Klensin wrote:
--On Sunday, 09 January, 2005 22:22 +0100 Stephane Bortzmeyer
[EMAIL
Hi Fred,
I've previously worked with the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) here in
Australia, and they propagate several of these type of warnings
between meteorological, seismic and aviation agencies here
and around the world using message switching systems.
The Internet is used for dissemination in a
Unfortunately, I don't believe that there is an actively monitored
tsunami service in the Indian ocean, which may have been able to
transfer such warnings.
There is no such a system in the Indian Ocean.
There is a big impending initiative to have one in place.
-- Petre
The role of a generic,
At 04:54 PM 01/12/05 +1100, Greg Daley wrote:
Unfortunately, I don't believe that there is an actively monitored tsunami
service in the Indian ocean, which may have been able to transfer such
warnings. The role of a generic, authenticated, internet-based warning
system may be useful in future
Guys,
The topic is no doubt interesting. We do, however, need to scope the work.
Two routing protocols and a flooding mechanism are already enough for one WG.
Options: a) wait until MANET is done and bring the topic then, and b) create
another mailing list, bring the topic there, see if
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the
following document:
- 'The wais URI Scheme '
draft-hoffman-wais-uri-03.txt as a Historic
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send any comments
24 matches
Mail list logo
